DONNA HARRIS GRIFFIN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court's affirmance of a departure sentence because the sentencing court relied on impermissible reasons under Rule 3.701, and remanded for resentencing without the state meeting its burden to show the impermissible reasons did not affect the sentence.
When a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence must be reversed and remanded for resentencing unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure.
[1] When a sentencing court relies on both permissible and impermissible reasons for departing from sentencing guidelines, the sentence must be reversed and remanded unless t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence”
Statement of the controlling legal standard from State v. Young and Brinson v. State
Griffin received a departure sentence from the sentencing guidelines. The sentencing court relied on reasons that included some of questionable validi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State cases and more on FLexlaw
ADKINS, Justice.
We have for review Griffin v. State, 470 So. 2d 103, 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the district court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
When an appellate court finds that a sentencing court relied upon a reason or reasons that are impermissible under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 in making its decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines should the appellate court examine the other reasons given by the sentencing court to determine if those reasons justify a departure from the guidelines or should the case be remanded for a resentencing?
Id. at 104. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(B)(4), Fla.Const. We have answered this identical question in both State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1985), and Brinson v. State, 476 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1985), in which we held that “when a departure sentence is grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons, the sentence should be reversed and remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason(s) would not have affected the departure sentence.” See also Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985).
In the case at bar, the district court affirmed the departure sentence despite finding that “some reasons appear to be of questionable validity as a basis for departure.”
Accordingly, we quash the decision and remand to the district court for further remand to the trial court for resentencing.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 517 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1987)…PER CURIAM. In this cause this Court did review Griffin v. State, 470 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), in which the District Court certified a question of great public importance. In our opinion dated December 5, 1985, Griffin v. State, 479 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1985), we answered the certified question, holding that a departure sentence grounded on both permissible and impermissible reasons must be reversed and the defendant resen-tenced unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that…
-
Brown v. State, 480 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…mpermissible reasons. Because the state has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the impermissible reason would not have affected the departure sentence, we must reverse the sentence and remand for resen-tencing. Griffin v. State, 479 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1985). An examination of the court’s reasons for the departure for the purpose of determining whether they are “clear and convincing” is inherent in a review of the extent of a departure. Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla.1985). The tri…
-
Wyman L. Austin v. State, 507 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The Second District Court of Appeal has held that psychological trauma to the victim can be a valid reason to depart in a kidnapping case. Griffin v. State, 470 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA) decision quashed on other grounds, 479 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1985); Ochoa v. State, 476 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Tompkins v. State, 483 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), however, the Second District held that, in order to constitute a valid reason for departure, the psychological trauma suffered b…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Atl. Beach v. Bull, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- Albritton v. State, 476 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Young, 476 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1985)
- Brinson v. State, 476 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1985)
- Griffin v. State, 470 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)